[Accessibility] Corrections and extentions to the 102 document

Janina Sajka janina at rednote.net
Wed Jul 30 08:39:30 PDT 2003

Gunnar Schmi Dt writes:
> From: Gunnar Schmi Dt <gunnar at schmi-dt.de>
> Hash: SHA1
> Hello,
> I've found some points in the 102 document that I think need to be changed:
> part a):
> The third bullet in the first list says:
> > provide text to speech voice output for individuals who cannot speak.
> >  Lack of the appropriate speech recognition based interfacing can
> >  prevent the individual's full participation.

Thanks for spotting this, Bunnar. You're correct. This doesn't make

I think the purpose of these three items is very general--to quickly
illustrate the need for accessibility standards. The point of this third
item is really a bit futuristic. I think we mean to say that, as
computers become more multimodal and speech interfaces are encompassed
by free standards, we need to ensure that people who don't speak or
don't hear are not excluded. I guess this applies to free standards
based telephony today and to computers in the future, actually.

So, maybe something like:

Support participation by individuals who can't speak or hear on today's
telephony interfaces and tomorrow's multimodal computer interfaces.

Maybe this isn't quite right either, but I think it might be a bit
closer. These three bullet points are meant to say something about the
three major disability groupings our standards will address--mobility,
vision, and speech/hearing. Actually, there's a hidden point for
learning disabilities in #2--but probably not worth teasing out at this

> IMO there is a gap between the first and the second sentence. Maybe we could 
> change the first sentence to:
> provide text to speech voice output for individuals who cannot speak and 
> speech recognition for individuals who cannot hear.
Unfortunately,this won't work either. People who don't hear may make
sounds when greeting each other (or not). But, they're unlikely to want,
or be able to use, voice input, imho.

I'm OK with your Part C & D points below.

> part c):
> Perhaps we can add the Qt Accessibility API to the list of currently existing 
> APIs.
> part d):
> Clearly also Qt and KDE would benefit from a standard (in the same way as 
> GNOME, which is in the list). Therefore I suggest to add them both to the 
> list. (Qt has both commercial and open source (GPL) licenses, KDE is licensed 
> under (L)GPL.)
> Gunnar Schmi Dt
> - -- 
> Co-maintainer of the KDE Accessibility Project
> Maintainer of the kdeaccessibility package
> http://accessibility.kde.org/
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
> iD8DBQE/J5DosxZ93p+gHn4RAqmtAJ943cYK8Y8gA4LFGK9GjdB8+UrhvgCgin+7
> mOZ0LHMRcqRKmPwOjm95xjw=
> =fjr7
> _______________________________________________
> Accessibility mailing list
> Accessibility at freestandards.org
> http://www.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/accessibility

				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

Email: janina at afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175

More information about the Accessibility mailing list